slow-mo-sexual:

enoughtohold:

recently i’ve seen a lot of people justifying their support of HIV criminalization by saying it’s necessary to protect sex workers from contracting HIV from men who pay for sex.

this makes a nice story, but the facts aren’t so convenient: in California from 1988 to June 2014, “The vast majority (95%) of all HIV-specific criminal incidents impacted people engaged in sex work or individuals suspected of engaging in sex work” (HIV Criminalization in California: Penal Implications for People Living with HIV/AIDS [pdf], Williams Institute, 2015, p. 2).

that is, it is the sex workers, not their clients, whom these laws are enforced against.

a Williams Institute policy brief (pdf) elaborates:

In those cases, a
misdemeanor solicitation charge becomes a felony solicitation
charge when a person has a positive HIV test result in their
criminal record. The felony solicitation statute has no intent
element; nor does it require any activity that can transmit HIV.
Therefore, a person can receive a felony charge for engaging in a
conversation or exchanging money. A person can also be
convicted of felony solicitation if they are on treatment that
prevents transmission, always use condoms, and/or work
exclusively with HIV-positive clients. [emphasis mine]

further, as both these publications make clear, HIV criminalization (at least in California) disproportionately impacts women, people of color, immigrants, and LGBT people, with white men who were arrested or cited under HIV-related codes being dramatically less likely to face actual charges.

far from being tools to protect the vulnerable, these laws are used to increase policing, criminalization and incarceration of already marginalized people.

if you care about sex workers or the aforementioned groups, this information should give you real pause, and i hope you’ll take the time to learn more about the reality of the laws you’re defending.

god were still doing this